KurtGodel77

Just because something works once doesn't mean you can keep doing it. There have been people who have gone down Niagra Falls, no barrel or anything, and have survived. That doesn't mean it's a safe strategy. Neither is it safe for a woman to put herself into the power of a violent and dangerous criminal.

A firearm + training + the willingness to use it WOULD have helped in this story. There would be two dead criminals, and a child without abdomenal stab wounds.

In THIS PARTICULAR case, the woman and her child escaped alive. Many women abducted by similar men get raped and murdered. You're acting as though a passive and submissive strategy is a low-risk one for female victims of crime. It isn't. The ONLY way to eliminate the risk a criminal creates is to put him in jail or kill him.

I guess we see things differently. If you're a woman in the presence of men capable of stabbing a three-year-old in the abdomen, you're already in a risky situation. The only limits to what men like these will do are those you create.

Story 1: A mother who gives her baby Tylenol and a nap after the baby has been shot. Story 2: a 17 year old mother, and a father who'd had a felony conviction before the gun was even fired. Story 3: A mother who leaves a gun lying around in reach of her five year old son, and who has outstanding warrants against her. Story 4: An 18-year old father who'd filed the serial numbers off his gun. Prior to the gun incident, he'd been charged with aggravated simple assault, possession of a weapon, possession of illegal drugs, and terrorist threats. Story 5: A college student who was unfamiliar with weapons was messing around with a gun. Story 6: An accidental shot to the arm while loading a gun for a hunting trip. Story 7: An accidental POLICE gunshot killed a kid while the police were raiding a home; looking for the kid's father. Okay, so the first four studies prove that idiots will endanger themselves with guns. This is true, but idiots will also endanger themselves and others by operating vehicles, using machine tools, or really doing just about anything. Stories 5 and 6 show that you need to be familiar with guns to be able to safely handle them. Story 7 shows . . . what exactly? That police SWAT teams shouldn't have guns? I'm not sure why that one is in there.

"am i saying guns have only helped in 7 situations over that time span? Of course not. " Well, if you don't know how many times guns have helped, why do you think that only an idiot would say they've done more harm than good? Guns help in three ways: 1. Deterring individual crimes. A single woman whose home gets invaded can probably chase the rapist away with a gun. 2. Killing criminals in the process of committing crime; thus preventing those criminals from committing future crimes. 3. Discouraging the faint of heart from a life of crime; because they know that any given criminal act could result in their immediate death. In the Wild West, the per-capita murder rate was significantly lower than in modern American cities. The fact that nearly every able-bodied man owned a gun was probably a big reason why.

There are a lot of Leftists on this thread, who are responding to the gun issue in the way they've been conditioned. It's no use arguing with such people, because they don't respond to logic when it comes to any issue about which they've been programmed. Logic states that if a woman a) had a gun, and b) was used to firing the gun, and c) had developed a certain amount of mental self-discipline in dangerous situations, that she could have been the next Bernard Goetz. Instead, her three-year-old child has two stab wounds in the abdomen. Not only would a gun have prevented this crime, it would have prevented any future crimes these men would otherwise have committed.

This movie was made to make a political point. The English (the bad guys) are racists who want to exterminate the British (the good guys). The British, led by Arthur, defeat the English. The film is really about a war between a narrow definition of humanity which the English allegedly had, and a broad definition which the British allegedly had. The movie's themes are probably not actually based on real history. Having said this, the movie has some good fight scenes. Just be aware you're buying a piece of anti-English, multiculturalist propaganda.

@BRH: Look, we've played the Patriots twice, the Jets twice, and the Dolphins twice. As bad as the Dolphins are overall, their defense is pretty good. We've played the Ravens and the Raiders. That's eight teams out of the 13 total we've played against right there. The results of each of those games were averaged into our overall offensive output before concluding that we were ranked ninth in scoring.

I disagree. Over the course of the year, we've faced a lot of good defenses. We've earned that 9th place ranking.

Our coaching staff is doing what they were hired to do.

I don't think that the restructuring you're talking about will work. As far as I know, Rivers has already gotten and cashed his bonus check from San Diego, so San Diego has to take the cap hit. Getting rid of him after the season accelerates the cap hit. There are two reasons why this shouldn't stop San Diego from trading Rivers away anyway: 1) San Diego has plenty of room under the cap next year (pre-trading Rivers away), and 2) San Diego can restructure the contracts of some of its other players to convert base 2005 salary into bonus.

Also, based on his level of play this year, I'd say that some part of him had given up. Whatever good people saw in his play over the last few years, I just didn't see it this year.

I say they should keep Drew Brees (who is a young QB who's proven himself successful) rather than go with Rivers. Yes, this means taking a cap hit next year, but that's the price you pay. How do they know Rivers won't turn out like other high round QB's like Ryan Leaf or Akili Smith? Trade Rivers away for a first round pick, and slap the franchise tag on Brees. With Rivers gone, Brees would probably be amenable to a long-term deal that would be cap-friendly on the front-end. Restructure other players' contracts to make them more cap-friendly for 2005, knowing that by 2006 Rivers will be off your books for good. The Chargers could probably get a high first round pick for Rivers, because that's where he was taken in this past year's draft, and he's done nothing since then to show he's unworthy of that rank.

You're forgetting Miami. Before the year began, analysts saw their good defense, their good running game (led by Ricky Williams), a passing game that would presumably be improved by A.J. Feeley and David Boston, and a revamped offensive line. Some analysts had them going to the Super Bowl. Turns out they were a little off.

Find a wooded area with a path that needs to be cleared (through thorn bushes and other undergrowth). Then clear it, using clippers, a shovel, or the tool of your choice. That should help.

Yes! Willis takes good care of the football. Very rarely does he fumble.

I like this idea. We could probably get more out of trading him away if the pick is conditional.

I'd be perfectly happy about ripping the Dolphins off in a one-sided trade. But if the trade was more balanced, it would be better for it to be outside the division.

I'm looking to find out how much people think Travis can contribute to the team next year.

You've got to be kidding me about Clarett. For one thing we seem to be doing okay at RB even with Travis hurt. For another, TD is the LAST guy in the league who would take Clarett. Every time that whole controversy came up, I'd see another quote on NFL.com where TD was saying something negative about Clarett.

Good point. The Bills won once when Willis got slightly less than 100 yards.

You could say the same thing about Travis.

Maybe they meant that Travis was worth a draft pick in the top five rounds.